LSAT-Section-1-Logical-Reasoning Section One : Logical Reasoning - Practice Questions

Question 160

Scientist: Some critics of public funding for this research project have maintained that only if it can be indicated how the public will benefit from the project is continued public funding for it justified. If the critics were right about this, then there would not be the tremendous public support for the project that even its critics acknowledge.

If the scientist's claims are true, which one of the following must also be true?

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
The benefits derived from the research project are irrelevant to whether or not its funding is justified.
○
Continued public funding for the research project is justified.
○
Public support for the research project is the surest indication of whether or not it is justified.
○
There is tremendous public support for the research project because it can be indicated how the public will benefit from the project.
○
That a public benefit can be indicated is not a requirement for the justification of the research project's continued public funding.

Reference / correct answer:

That a public benefit can be indicated is not a requirement for the justification of the research project's continued public funding.

This one’s tricky, and might have been a good candidate to skip during your first pass through the section. It’s an Inference question, a kind that’s typically not vulnerable to prephrasing, and it has a formal logic element jumbling together the terms “some,” “only,” “not,” and the hypothetical “if.” Eeek! Surely no picnic. But there is a clever way into this, and it involves working backwards, beginning at the end. That’s where the most concrete information appears, so it makes sense to note that and work from there. Here’s what we know: There is public support for the project; the critics acknowledge it. “If the critics were right about this” (referring to something that comes earlier), then there would NOT be support. But there is support, so guess what? The critics must be wrong. About what? About “this.” What’s “this”? It’s what the critics “maintain” in the first sentence: Public funding for the project is justified only if the public can see the benefit. In other words, the critics believe that the public seeing the benefit is required for public funding to be justified – the “only if” tells us that. And if the critics are wrong in thinking so, as we deduced above from the latter part of the stimulus, then the public seeing a benefit is NOT required for the justification of the public funding.

Question 161

The new agriculture bill will almost surely fail to pass, the leaders of all major parties have stated that they oppose it.

Which one of the following, if true, adds the most support for the prediction that the agriculture bill will fail to pass?

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
Most bills that have not been supported by even one leader of a major party have not been passed into law.
○
Most bills that have not been passed into law were not supported by even one member of a major party.
○
If the leaders of all major parties endorse the new agriculture bill, it will pass into law.
○
Most bills that have been passed into law were not unanimously supported by the leaders of all major parties.
○
Most bills that have been passed into law were supported by at least one leader of a major party.

Question 162

The folktale that claims that a rattlesnake's age can be determined from the number of sections in its rattle is false, but only because the rattles are brittle and sometimes partially or completely break off. So if they were not so brittle, one could reliably determine a rattlesnake's age simply from the number of sections in its rattle, because one new section is. formed each time a rattlesnake molts.

Which one of the following is an assumption the argument requires in order for its conclusion to be properly drawn?

Select an option, then click Submit answer.

○
Rattlesnakes molt exactly once a year.
○
The rattles of rattlesnakes of different species are identical in appearance.
○
Rattlesnakes molt more frequently when young than when old.
○
The brittleness of a rattlesnake's rattle is not, correlated with the length of the rattlesnake's life.
○
Rattlesnakes molt as often when food is scarce as they do when food is plentiful.

Reference / correct answer:

Rattlesnakes molt as often when food is scarce as they do when food is plentiful.

More debunking – this time of an old rattlesnake folktale. We cannot, in fact, tell the age of a rattlesnake by the number of its rattle sections, but only because these sometimes break off. The author concludes (note the Conclusion Keyword “so”) that if these sections didn’t break off, we would be able to tell the age of a rattlesnake by counting its sections. This would certainly make sense if we knew the precise amount of time it takes a rattlesnake to form a new section, and this interval never changed. But notice that we’re told only that a new section appears every time a snake molts. How often is that? If it’s variable, then the author’s claim is bogus – we wouldn’t be able to tell the age simply from the number of sections. In order for the claim in the last sentence to hold up, we need to know that the intervals at which rattlesnakes molt are consistent. Note that we don’t need to know the exact time of the molting periods – only that there is an exact timing for this and that it doesn’t change. So choice [Rattlesnakes molt exactly once a year.] is a red herring whereas correct choice [Rattlesnakes molt as often when…] relates to the real issue at hand: If molting time is variable depending on food availability, then the whole theory goes out the window. The author must therefore assume that no such molting variations occur.

LSAT-Section-1-Logical-Reasoning – Section One : Logical Reasoning